Slashdot Mirror
Head Of ATF To Direct RIAA Anti-Piracy
plasmastate writes "Via Fox News: Bradley A. Buckles, the director of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms, is moving over to the RIAA to hunt down music pirates. And visions of David Koresh danced in their heads..."
And our scene unfolds with Bradley A. Buckles, with a stormtrooper hitsquad of RIAA goons...
... and the war on freedom rages on.
Buckles (over blowhorn): "YOU MUSIC WHORING PIRATES, SEND THE MP3s AND OGGs OUT FIRST OR WE'LL BURN YOUR COMMUNIST MUSIC SHARING COMPOUNDS TO THE GROUND, WOMEN AND CHILDREN BE DAMNED!!!!"
Think about this... you have to nab the head of a religious cult who is known to leave his compound on occasion. Remember that this megalomaniac (like many others) has preached that the government will try to bring your beloved, heavily armed, community to an apocolyptic end. So you make the decision to attack on the Sabbath, at the heavily armed compound when you know there are children there sending several of your agents to their death because you thought it was going to be a cakewalk.
Exactly the kind of incompetance that you can now expect from the RIAA. Not that they were competant before.
Seems somewhat appropriate.
.. look at the bright side, while his jackboots are busy stomping out piracy, the world will again be safe for boozers, smokers and gun collectors.
Trolling is a art,
Buckles' retirement is effective Jan. 3. No replacement was immediately named.
I heard they have Himmler on ice. I think he'd feel right at home.
Oh man, this is quite a bad turn of events! ... for gun owners.
Now gun owners get the bad publicity and rep of the RIAA via remote association.
~/ssh slashdot.org ssh: connect to host slashdot.org port 22: too many beers
...is this something to worry about? Or should I be sadly shaking my head at the RIAA's ever-more-pathetic attempts to crack down on a technology they don't understand?
If there has ever been one government department that I haven't cared for (excl. IRS), it would be the ATF. I think that the ATF is probably one of the more corrupt government agencies that we have, and it absolutely frightens me that the director of the ATF is now headed on over to the RIAA.
I guess only the future will tell of what is going to happen with the RIAA, and their relentless battle against pirates.
YOU'RE WINNER !
Another lame blog
That is exactly the reaction that they want.
I had but a simple dream, to destroy all humans.
Will we laugh at ourselves 50 years from now as we Americans do when we had the communist witch trials? Is it possible we shouldn't say that it is downloaders that is killing CD sales as it might be people have finished replacing their collections, artists are getting in general worse and more shrink-wrapped, and finally true piracy done by organized crime(ie Mafia style business)?
Now instead of getting a threatening letter in the mail, 14 years downloading music gets to be roasted alive as ATF agents try to put the computer into sleep mode but it bursts in to flames instead.
EvilCON - Made Famous by
Instead of notice letters given to the wrong people, you now could get a SWAT team knocking down the door of the wrong house. That will go down well with the public!
What's wrong with reporting illegal software use? I noticed several employees running suspicious software on their PC's, which did NOT look like "Approved Microsoft Windows(tm) Technology" that I use. The Start button was replaced with a barefoot, for example! I called up the BSA and now several of my coworkers are no longer working here.
There is a representative from Microsoft coming next Tuesday to make sure all of those boxes have the illicit software reinstalled with appropriate Microsoft American-Made technology.
I'd just as soon report YOU, too, as look at you. Fucking thieves.
Put down the mouse and put your hands on the monitor. Do it now!
These guys are going to make Bill Gates look good. At least he tries to play the good cop and convince you he is selling a service. The RIAA is just a bully.
Rosco: "If brains were gunpowder, Enos couldn't blow his nose."
It's funny that you compare the RIAA with Government departments. I think the RIAA has been a fully qualified Governmental insititution for a long time now. Think about it: they can lobby laws into existance, they have political and juridical influence, and above all they have had growing enforcement powers.
But of course, being an association of sane, properly-american capitalist corporations, it ain't restricted the same way as official Government depts. *Cough* What do you call a government-endorsed monopoly already ?
Maybe we deserve this world ?
Considering that the RIAA is not a law enforcement agency or even a government entity, wouldn't they be doing a little bit better finding someone with some experience in civil suits. What can a former ATF director offer to this private organization?
ATF - Wonderful - weren't the first shots fired at the Koresh compound fired by an ATF agent shooting himself in the thigh?
Judging by the reports that I have read, we can expect the following healines soon.
ATF RAIDS HOME
(ATF press release) In an effort to stamp out musical piracy, which leads to terrorism - the ATF today raided the home of Amanda Johnson (age 12) and her brother brad (age 9). Both pirates were taken down. One of the pirates was shot in the raid when he attacked the ATF agents with a fluid projectile weapon. The ATF agent is expected to make a full recovery, while the pirate is listed in stable but critical condition.
"We're just trying to protect our American way of life", said Butch Howitzer. "These pirates are destroying the ability of the RIAA to run a good monopoly, besides, if this piracy thing gets out of hand we might actually have to pay artists. Ticketmaster and the record label executives can't afford this. Lets be honest, the money these pirates steal prevents a record executive from getting the thereapy they need every day."
AngryPeopleRule
"Science is about ego as much as it is about discovery and truth " - I said it, so sue me.
It turns out that Bradley A. Buckles wasn't their first choice, but Hannibal Lectur wasn't available.
Kind thoughts do not change the world
Woopdeedoo. Another goon jumps ship from their "respective" positions onto the SS RIAA (You can decide for yourself is that is to signify a boat or "Schutzstaffel"). The end result?
No significance whatsoever.
The reality is Jesus Christ himself could be reborn, float above the skyscrapers of NYC and proclaim to the world "Oh, my children, those who doth pirate thine audio workings of thy peers shall suffer eternal damnation" and people would STILL download music.
The solution? Stop being so goddamn complacent and try something new, because obviously the old isn't working too well.
sweetheart, why is there a fucking M1 Abrams on the front lawn?
PC moderators can suck my White pierced, tattooed dick. If you think pride == hate, s/dick/Aryan meat mallet/g.
Buckles, according to the article, was appointed as head of the ATF in 1999, long after the Waco incident, under President Clinton.
The sort of problems that people are joking about us facing because of Buckles should be attributed to his predecessors, not him.
Course, he did receive from Ashcroft, he can't be too clean.
Why should I argue rationally with someone being irrational? I'll just mock them instead.
But it's not theft.
See, your problem is that you aren't willing to accept reality, instead focusing on keeping your grasp on falsehood. Come back when you know what "copyright infrigement" means AS WELL AS what "theft" means.
Or just don't come back, really.
Woo hoo! Now it'll be just as easy to get free music as it is to get weed.
ATF lead: This must be the place. They've got all kinds of crazy stuff going on in there.
ATF agent: [talks into a communicator] Code 7. We believe we have found the compound. Request immediate backup. [the ATF lead looks at the house again]
Barbrady: [immediate indeed, appears in the lead's sights] Okay, so just what is going on here, people?
ATF lead: Get down! [pulls him into position along with the others]
Barbrady: What?
ATF lead: It's just like we told you, officer! There's a religious cult in there that plans to commit mass suicide when the meteor shower starts. [resumes viewing, but is interrupted]
Barbrady: Are you sure?
ATF lead: Of course we're sure! [points out the initials on his cap] We're the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms! It's our job to know what these fanatics do!
Barbrady: So what does the ATF do when religious fanatics are gonna commit mass suicide?
ATF lead: Oh, don't worry! We won't let that happen! Even if it means we have to kill each and every one of them.
~UltraSkuzzi
This comment is liscensed by SCO.
I always thought it was strange to have a federal agency dedicated to alcohol, tobacco, and firearms. Other than being a part of any good camping trip, what do these three items have in common?
There's no 'theft' going on, no matter which way you're looking at it.
;)
example:
Alice rips a CD (she bought) and sends it to Bob.
Who got robbed of something now?
Actually, in my case (and in the case of most people I know) filesharing (and getting music from friends) has greatly increased the number of CD's I buy by allowing me to easily discover more music.
Of course, most of the music I buy is from non-RIAA labels so they have a reason to sue me anyway.
The path I walk alone is endlessly long.
30 minutes by bike, 15 by bus.
Why should it scare the piss out of you?
The man isn't quite ready to retire, but he's probably tired of being at the ATF. So these people hire him.
I'm pretty sure he's not going to be able to form squads of gun-toting "enforcers" to go around and search for pirated music.
While I don't necessarily agree with their tactics (%99 of their lawsuits have been pretty bunk), they do make a valid point: copying this stuff willy-nilly without regard to the copyright is illegal. Just because you bought one CD doesn't mean that you can give copies away to everyone you know, nor does it automagically grant you the right to copy all the CDs of your friends.
Now, if you're only downloading music by indie bands or that has been specifically put up for legal download (itunes comes to mind), what do you have to worry about?
If you're going to turn around and tell me that it's your right to download all the music you want and that the copyrights placed on the music is null and void, then I'd have to respectfully disagree with you.
I'm really not trying to troll here. I'm just failing to see why this should be a cause for alarm.
I told you THIS was coming a long time ago!
As unpalatable the actions of the RIAA seem to be (suing low-income families etc), is this not what technologically-savvy people (read: slashdot posters) have asked for? The RIAA seems to be going after file sharers...and at this point, I don't think that the whole "I did not know it was illegal" argument flies anymore thanks to the large publicity.
While the RIAA is making pirates into veritable Robin Hoods who look pitiful when the lawsuit comes in the mail, one is hard pressed to critisize them for protecting their copyrights.
Now, driving while chewing tabacco, sipping on a pint jack, listening to pirated Billy Ray Cyprus and shooting at the occasional road sign will all be covered under the same agency.
So, are they planning to maintain their "shoot on sight" rules a la Ruby Ridge?
Nothing to see here; Move along.
1) The argument 'just think like me and it will all make sense' if worthless, yet most people use it often. Also, they tend to try to add insults.
:) Cheers.
2) I _know_ what copyright infringement is. See, I WORK for a living (writing software) and I understand economics. The fact that what I create isn't a physical artifact doesn't change my lost business when it is stolen. I feel (and this isn't any kind of personal attack) that a LOT of the slashdot folks have this whole 'money is bad' philosophy, whilst in school or living with mom and dad. Well, the real (competitive) world is different, and I refuse to listen to the economic advice of a 15 year old who's never worked a day.
Now, that said... I think the whole OSS movement is an excellent one, and produces superior code. It also hinges on the right of the developers to give away their code IF THEY WANT TO. Anyone who really believes in the OSS model needs to respect an author's right to NOT have his/her work stolen, if they choose not to share.
Off to see if I've been marked a troll for not following the 'theft is easy and therefore good' line
"Faith: Belief without evidence in what is told by one who speaks without knowledge, of things without parallel." - A.B.
...its a great way for artists that does not have a major record company in the back to pay for tv ads etc. I for one am buying a lot more records since i started downloading files on soulseek, mostly because Im able to discover a lot more good artists. instead of futile resistance the market must adopt to new technology. the days of record company behemoths are numbered. interesting article on non-piracy reasons for declining sales
You may know what copyright infringement is (not hard, it's a law), but you only THINK you know economics.
Try studying the Austrian school of economics. Google for some of the Austrian economists who think intellectual property is an oxymoron (like Thomas Jefferson did).
Richard Steven Hack - This sig is TOO GODDAMN SHORT TO DO ANYTHING USEFUL WITH! MORONS!
Where exactly did it say they were going to take our rights away? And which rights? The right to trade copyrighted material?
Come on. So a new suit is going to run the axis of evil that is the RIAA, remind me how that makes PHB's turn away from open source products?
Since you're one of the few folks who responds intelligently to this issue (and used your nick... what a coincidence), I'll respond...
The artist was deprived of the money Bob would have otherwise spent. It does matter how you look at it.
Now, if you think the whole concept of licensing is wrong, well... I can see your point (I disagree with it, but such is the world). If you are just taking it because it is free, all other arguments are kinda weak.
My problem has always been this: In the heyday of file sharing (2000 or so), I worked in a lab and saw the students downloading thousands of mp3s a day, and the whole "well, if I like it I'll buy it" argument was never voiced. A friend is a DJ (mp3J?) that uses all stolen songs on his laptop instead of CDs. He certainly didn't buy any.
When I see that pattern repeated enough times, I have no sympathy for what I (as a 'non-tangible' content creator) see as thieves.
I can handle that folks have differing ways of looking at things. It just gets REALLY old when people (not you) get all self righteous when they are violating strong social mores.
"Faith: Belief without evidence in what is told by one who speaks without knowledge, of things without parallel." - A.B.
Perhaps off topic, but of interest none the less.
I suspect we should be more concerned with who the fellows replacement will be. Although the RIAA might like to conduct personal raids they don't yet have the legal right to do so.
The ATF on the other hand not only does but has a nice long history of being a bit heavy handed.
Regardless of which side of the various debates you weigh in on most reasonable people will admit that those we entrust with enforcing the laws SHOULD be held to a higher standard of conduct and a higher level of public oversight.
O.K. Calling the attendants to turn up my thorazine drip now...
Ward
. Silence! Be thankful thy species is unpalatable! .
Well, i guess if your into popular rap music...
This is not the greatest sig in the world, no. This is just a tribute.
But let's not forget that there are people out there who would never have bought the CDs. Sure, they downloaded the CDs for free, but this doesn't mean that they'd be willing to pay money for the CD even if shelling out money was the only way to obtain the music on the CD--especially when a person downloads a CD and discovers that the CD sucks because most of the songs are completely different from the few by that artist that are played on the radio.
Yes, your point is valid, but only to a certain extent. I would guess that only a small percentage of people who download CDs would actually buy them if their p2p/Usenet/IRC sources were taken away. No, I don't have comprehensive statistics on this percentage, but of the four people near me at the moment, 0% of them would purchase CDs if they couldn't get them for free.
Additionally, I would venture a guess that artists gain much more mindshare through free music distribution than through CD sales. This may directly turn into money if people who discover an artist's music decide to go see a live show. Free music seems to work with mixtapes rather well...
True story.
That's just what the RIAA needs... booze and guns...
What are you some kinda liberal?
What better way to fight piracy than to get liquored up and shoot people at random?
Not to mention forcing people to listen to the same Nancy Sinatra over and over and over and over again. But then doing this with Britney Spears would be even more effective. This is the technique that BAFT brings to the RIAA, and the horror that awaits music pirates. Especially the ones that don eye patches and go Arrrrr!
Nobody died when Nixon lied.
I'm meeting you half way you stupid hippies!
Apparently you don't, since you keep confusing it with theft. It's not.
First, copying is not stealing, it's copyright violation. Second, technology is changing the way business models need to work - a pay-per-copy scheme simply isn't viable any more. When conditions change, you can't depend on the government to prop up outdated business models - that's basic economics.
And BTW, I also work for a living creating software. I also create music, poetry, and stories, though I've yet to be paid a significant amount - and like most musicians and authors, probably never will - for those things.
Tom Swiss | the infamous tms | my blog
You cannot wash away blood with blood
You noticed that too, eh?
:)
I think that it has something to do with a less-developed set of interpersonal skills, (common amongst tech folks) for combined with a bit of intellectual arrogance (also common).
Put down those flamethrowers, I'm a card carrying geek for many years. Taking offense won't change whether I'm right or wrong.
Unless 'here' means the US, in which case I agree, but don't have an explanation
(yup, I'm an american)
"Faith: Belief without evidence in what is told by one who speaks without knowledge, of things without parallel." - A.B.
NEWS: MAE-West, one of the nation's key switching facilities for Internet connectivity, was completely destroyed by 500 pounds of Energel explosive after confirmation of a rumor that one of the routers in there was being used to send MP3 files to the dreaded user@KaZaA
"I believe that we have stopped to illegal tranfer of copyrighted materials in the most effective and timely manner possible", stated Bradley A. Buckles, head of the Anti-Piracy Unit of the Recording Industry Association of America and former director of the ATF.
"It is truly unfortunate that half of the US now has to go on without internet access just because of the actions of a few unscrupulous file traders" Buckles continues, "File swapping really does hurt everyone."
MAE-West was one of two major network traffic exchange points in the United States. The other, MAE-East, is in Vienna, Virginia.
When asked about MAE-East, Buckles said, "We'll blow that up too, if it turns out that kazaaliteuser@KaZaA is using that for illegal file sharing."
The RIAA now is pleased to announce in partnership with AT&T and PG&E the formal unveiling of "MediaNet". MediaNet is a network that connects your electrical system with the sewer system to form a massive computer network that can be billed per election transferred. Additionally, packet headers are decoded to determine to origin of traffic and impose any and all necessary foreign and domestic tarrifs and taxes.
We will be installing new meters alongside the ones you already have and you will be billed automatically for the webpages you access. MP3 ID3 tags are automatically read and you will be charged "fair market value" for any files transferred. When copyrighted images or sound clips load, users will also be charged "fair market value" for a single use right to view and hear them.
We believe that MediaNet will be a great success and will provide millions of homes and businesses with a valuable metered internet lifeline.
MediaNet service is a mandatory addition to your current utilities. Basic use fees will start at $50/month*
* Basic use fees do not include state data tax, universal MediaNet tax, interstate data transfer surcharge, or billing meter rental fees.
Can you explain why you should be paid over and over again - for up to 50 years after your death - for once piece of work ?
Can you also explain how someone can "steal" something from you, yet you still have it ?
I don't think money is bad. I do, however, think the entire copyright system is fundamentally flawed.
The parent post about illegal software may be satire, but all satire has a point. This stuff happens, employees often do run unlicensed software with the KNOWLEDGE of the employer. That situation will be prosecuted by the copyright owners. Microsoft and others large software mfgs have been known to come in and pull inspections based on "tips", and often with the help of local law agencies. Several firms have been fined large amounts. So if an employee wants the firm they work for to not get hammered with a fine (which could be the difference between staying solvent and going under)then they should report unlicensed software. At firms that have a strong corporate Code of Ethics/Code of Conduct you may be the one in trouble if you know it and don't say something. So, it can be your ass either way if you let it slide. I wouldn't be surprised if the RIAA starts looking at companies too, if the employees are downloading or sharing and the firm does not block it they become a nice target. Doing "illegal" things on your Home PC is one thing but letting it go on at a firm is quite another more serious situation.
But seemingly, a lot of people here have an entitlement complex, where they think they can take whatever the fuck they want for no other reason than that they want it.
The same could be said for both sides . . .
RIAA: Believes it's entitled to racking in all the money it wants solely because it can.
Swappers: Believe they're entitled to racking in all the music they want solely because they can.
Blaming only the side that's obviously breaking the law is not incorrect, but is not likely to lead to a working solution (defined as a solution that both sides agree is reasonable) either.
If you want to bring economics into the game, whose fault is it if the masses steal? If the opportunity cost (an economic idea) is so high that people don't want to pay, then it affects the supply and demand. Since RIAA sets the price high, then there is a deficit -- what people are willing to pay and the supply do not meet equilibrium, and therefore there are a lot of CD's on the shelf. The RIAA assumes that this is the result of piracy. What has happened is that there is crappy music and so people's oppertunity cost has dropped, i.e. they don't want to pay for crappy CD's for one song, and the market has not adjusted, i.e prices should have dropped, and people look to get their music cheaper. The piracy begins when people's value of the music is so low and the price so high that people implicitly associate a lower value on the CD's (go to Best Buy and watch, invetiably some person will pick up a CD and say, "I don't want to pay $22.95 for one song.") They like the one song, but have no venue to purchase it at a reasonable cost, and there is no market structure to figure out what that cost should be -- RIAA won't cooperate, it is an all or none package, you buy the entire CD or not at all. So the person goes home and downloads the CD, because free is even cheaper than the oppertunity cost.
Well, there's my two cents.
The views expressed are mine own and do not express the views of my employer.
Frankly, this is good news. Look at what happened to alcohol. They might outlaw filesharing for a while, but it the end we'll win.
Private FTP servers = the new speakeasies?
Cheers, mate!
there's no place like ~
The solution was not to allow the old industry of broadcast television to sue the cable TV companies out of existence under an old copyright law which was written without the participation of cable TV interests. Complete control over all uses of works is not a right that has ever or should ever be granted to owners of copyrights. Such a right would end the development of new technologies and tremendously reduce innovation in any country foolish enough to grant it. However, compensation can be given without control, and that's what's been done in the past as in the case of cable TV. The cable TV had to pay a license fee, but the old broadcasters could not restrict the cable TV companies from licensing any TV program they wanted. That's the solution that should've been applied to Napster. It grants both parties a reasonable settlement and allows people to continue to innovate.
They're re-ordering their priorities, and we have to call then the Bureau of Recording, Tobacco, Fireams and Alcohol - or RTFA.
Don't go to a brothel if you want to buy broth
The difference being... writing software is not form of art (I suppose that can be argued by some).
I think people are irked in general not because they don't wanna pay, but because music, an art form, has been bastardized by corporate america. When people go out and use technology to listen to music, they get punished for it.
Musicians aren't obligated to make millions.. it's the studios who choose to give it to them and expect to make it back in CD sales. Artists make nil from CD sales. It's all from touring.
Technically, they should be in it for the music, not for the money and it's this fact along that angers people.
While I completely understand your post about losing profit if someone were to download your software, it is in no way, shape, or form a crime to listen to music without paying for it.
We have secretly replaced these Slashdot mods' sense of humor with a rusty nail. Let's see if they notice!!
And just because I speed and get away with it does it mean I never committed the crime at all?
/. a fair amount of anti-copyright posts get modded up and posts like mine often dwell in the land of the trolls.
Yes, copyright laws aren't perfect for this day and age but changing them so that you can legally download the latest 'music' from Metallica may not fulfill the goal of promoting "the progress of science and useful arts" either.
The ease of violating musical copyrights is still not a valid reason to change copyright laws. This is an argument that people continue to push. If the major argument was that copyright laws are simply making rich people filthy rich years after their initial contribution to the arts then yes, I would agree with that.
And I admit I should use a smaller brush, but you do have to admit that at least here on
"She's a West Texas girl, just like me" - G.W Bush Iraqis
One day you just knew how to program? The full knowledge of programming fundamentals and the particular language syntax just sprang into your brain? You did this entirely without years of support from a society that, in addition to simply providing a safe environment, produced decades of practical and theoretical computer knowledge that teaches us how both how to solve particular known problems and approach unknown ones?
I love money, I love business, and I love free enterprise - which is why I hate copyrights. Copyrights are not about money and business, they are about controll.
In fact it is an insult to suggest otherwise. It would be like saying that I don't believe in free enterprise and business because I don't want to own slaves on the plantation. What a crock!!!
Besides I seem to renember that when IBM couldn't hold intellectual property rights over the PC interface, then a economic explosion happened in the PC industry.
And when the internet went commercial, and no business could own the TCP/IP protocool, another economic explosion happened.
Now you see growth rates across the board with linux of 20% plus, and some of the most successfull IPO's in history. What the Hell - I still get grief about being anti free market!
Sheesh!
So?
If you show it to someone, how does it follow that it would be intrinsically morally wrong if they made a copy of it? It's funny, after the centuries of philosophical debate over right and wrong through history, that this particular concept of having rights over distributing copies didn't pop up until the 17th century. It just must not have been as obvious to the great thinkers of history as it seems to be to you.
It is wrong only because it's wrong to break the law. The law in question was put in place for economic, not moral, reasons. It is not wrong to copy it just because you created it. You seem to have a false sense of entitlement. If you want to keep total control of it, don't show it to anyone.
I am not asking about elements of law, I am asking for a reason why my work should be any more stealable (?) than someone else's.
But elements of law are the only thing you've got. IP protection is not a "natural" right that transcends the law. If it were, it wouldn't have an expiration date.
I would argue that waaaaay too many people are eager to give away other people's rights.
And I'm questioning whether it was wise to expand your rights to the extent they've been expanded over the last few years. They didn't come from nowhere, your expanded rights came at the expense of the rights of others.
Kind of says it all doesn't it?
Take a few minutes and think about how Billy Corgan or Jimmy Chamberlain or The Muffs or, uh, E would like the world to be.
Then take a few hours and spend them making the world more like that.
Then if you feel like it, write your hero a letter and tell them what you did. That part is optional.
Simple to say, hard to do.
Bradley A. Buckles arrives at the RIAA just in time to tackle the problem of finding P2P users located within the 21124 square miles (82^2*Pi) surrounding every WiFi point in America. (New WiFi distance record.)
"It's the height of ridiculousness to say for those 9 lines you get hundreds of millions."
"The artist was deprived of the money Bob would have otherwise spent. It does matter how you look at it."
This assumes that the artist was entitled to Bob's money in the first place. Using this logic, it could well be said that if Bob was going to purchase a CD, but saw a really nice chess set and used the CD money to purchase that instead of the CD, the chess set manufacturer has 'robbed' the artist of a sale. The artist was going to get Bob's money, but someone else's actions (the creation and marketing of the chess set) cancelled an otherwise-guaranteed sale.
If you really want to see how the artist is deprived of money, you should check into how much the record industry takes (as a matter of general practice) out of the artist's cut of album sales to cover the cost of broken records using a model which was created when vinyl records were sold. Nevermind the fact that the percentage of CDs broken during shipping is a mere fraction of the number of vinyl records that were broken; they're taking the same cut. Or perhaps you could look at how the industry manipulates artists' contracts using high-powered lawyers to ensure that artists are locked into a single company for eternity without even the option of going out on their own. When an artist is contracted to produce 5 albums, the recording company will often ignore albums that don't sell well, keeping the artist locked into a perpetual contract that actually hinders their ability to create new content. The record company makes a bunch of money from the first album, but gives the artist next to nothing from it, citing "recording, studio, manufacturing, shipping, marketing, promotional costs, etc", then shelves the next 5 or 6 albums when it becomes clear they're not selling as well as the first, but then tells the artist that they've only created one album. And don't go thinking that this only happens rarely, or to small artists. The Dixie Chicks just recently had to sue their label to get more than $4million that was owed to them. If memory serves, they recorded an album that went platinum, for which their label refused to pay them. Talk about real theft.
"My problem has always been this: In the heyday of file sharing (2000 or so), I worked in a lab and saw the students downloading thousands of mp3s a day, and the whole "well, if I like it I'll buy it" argument was never voiced. A friend is a DJ (mp3J?) that uses all stolen songs on his laptop instead of CDs. He certainly didn't buy any."
The "I'm just demoing it" argument has always been a bit weak, though not entirely inaccurate. While there are some folks who really do buy more music when they download, I'm certain that, at least a majority, do not. That being said, I think the real problem is that when people look at a CD, they're thinking less about an artist making it, and more about a multi-national conglomerate mega-corp that produced it and is trying to sell it to them at extremely inflated prices. My personal argument in this whole thing is that I will not put my money into the hands of corrupt organizations that should have been broken up decades ago, with their top brass jailed on RICO violations. They've now grown so bold as to demand to be exempt from all anti-trust lawsuits. This is like the mafia demanding to be exempt from murder prosecutions. I suppose the logic is, "we've been breaking these laws for so long, why don't you just stop bugging us about it?". I do buy CDs, T-shirts, concert tickets, etc from non-RIAA affiliated bands that I like. That is how I show my support. If Metallica wants another dollar from me (I've bought their stuff in the past), they'd best get away from their RIAA whore of a label and stop treating their fans like garbage. I absolutely support the rights of artists and others to make a profit from their intellectual property. What I do not support in any way are corrupt organizations (as defined under US Federal RICO statutes). I will not pay them money, and I will not support t
-- "Government is the great fiction through which everybody endeavors to live at the expense of everybody else."
I don't recognize the copy right of monopolistic publishers. Copy right was invented to give artists the ability to make a living off of their works. Then monopolies got involved by acquiring copy rights and then lobbying for them to be forever. By doing this, they established a perminant monopoly with which they could pay artists a measly pittance for their work and therefore, bypass the copy right system's original intent and cut off the access to art we had prior to copy right laws, as well as being able to censor that music for whatever goverment or group happened to be involved with the monopoly. This is why p2p systems are wonderful, they bypass copy right and publishers altogether and give people the ability to promote and distribute their work all in one fell swoop. The day the RIAA/MPAA is done away with and I can go down to the music store and find uncensored music made by local and national bands is the day I'll be a very very happy camper because I don't have to deal with these monopolies.
I like law, it makes life simpler and makes sure I can rest in my bed at night even though I don't know who's sleeping a mere 20 feet from me. I just don't like how it's used and when I don't like how it's used, it's my duty to stand up for it and to educate myself and others, hence the reason I'm posting on slashdot.
As for the RIAA hiring someone from the ATF to do their dirty work, this both puts me into roaring fits of laughter at it's rediculousness and rage/fear. If they do put together armed enforcement squads, I'm going to first of all shit my pants, and second of all wait to see if congress says "ya know, this is taking it way to far". If they don't, I'm seriously going to consider my allegance to this country. Sure, I shouldn't have anything to fear from the RIAA if I'm not doing illegal things, but on the other hand, they did prosecute a 12 year old girl and an 80 year old dude who didn't even own a computer. So why wouldn't they make a mistake, break into my house for the heck of it and slaughter my family even though I'm innocent?
Candy-Coated Knowledge
128K MP3s as uploaded to P2P networks are substantially identical to the 128K MP3s which provide the content you hear on analog FM radio. In fact, using a tuner card, you can even record them back to 128K MP3s and store them on your hard drive, just as you can record them to analog cassette tape and trade them to your friends.
The difference between listening via download or FM radio?
There is no proof that 128K MP3s are more effective or less effective in promoting the sale of CDs whether broadcast over the radio or downloaded from the Internet. The same set of ears decides based on them whether or not to buy the CD or not. The latest Eminem album was "pre-released" unofficially over P2P a month before official release at record stores. Because of this, customers who wanted to hear it at better than 128K MP3 quality were ready to buy as soon as the CDs hit retail and it immediately hit #1.
What did Eminem lose from the "theft" of his music? Nobody associated with the RIAA or any record label has explained this to us, and I've heard no complaints from Eminem about this.
In fairness, Madonna's latest got pre-released and it tanked. However, Madonna has yet to explain why she thinks it wouldn't have gone into the dumper in the absence of pre-release via the Net.
One difference? FM radio stations are paid by RIAA labels to carry music promotional content, while via P2P, listeners host the music on servers at their own expense and transfer the music at their own bandwidth expense.
Another difference? Getting digital content via FM radio is legal. Getting the identical content via the Internet isn't.
Why?
The *AA companies bought off a shitload of politicians openly through campaign contributions to make the law that way.
Why would the *AA companies want to cut one promo distribution channel that the listeners pay for instead of them?
Effectively, only the RIAA companies have access to FM as a music promotional channel. The indie musicians and labels are priced out of the market. The indie musicians and labels can afford to distribute promotional tracks via P2P. That's why the RIAA has done its best to destroy P2P and Internet Radio in the hands of individuals and small organizations.
I don't mind protecting the legitimate rights of artists to profit from their work in the least. However, I have no interest in interfering with the ability of indie artists to promote their work via the Internet, and less than no interest in wasting taxpayer money to prop up the obsolete and dying business model of the RIAA and soon, the MPAA member companies.
What about PIRACY!!!?
128K MP3s are promotional giveaways of no intrinsic value. The product is the physical CD, and that's what people pay for.. Counterfeit CDs of anything you can find in a record stores are available in Asia, pressed at Asian CD manufacturing facilities and sold openly all over Asia and in some cases, even in the USA. If the *AA really wanted to stop PIRACY!!!, they'd be pressuring US politicians to stop the manufacture of counterfeit CDs in Asia. There are many kinds of pressure the US government could be putting on Asian governments to stop this. Why isn't this happening? Ask Hilary Rosen yourself.
If you want to call P2P and Internet Radio theft, be my guest, but please smash your FM radio over your head first.
Tech Public Policy stuff
Well... steal is such a harsh word, I prefer something different. But I'll get to that later on.
Why P2P music and more?
When I was in my upper teen and college years I had a great interest in music. I had a very wide range of music interests that covered several types of classical music, rock, jazz, country (a little), and a whole variety of music forms that didn't even have a name yet. I think now they're lumped into the New-Age acid jazz something or other...
But I would learn about this music by cruising halls in the dorms listening to what other people where playing and checking out music collections of friends of mine.
And stuff I liked I could buy at the local store for anywhere from $2 to $10 in circa 1985.
Fast forward 18 years.
I don't live in a dorm anymore so it's hard to hear other peoples stereos. But I do listen to the radio. Have you? Do you know what's on the radio? Considering it's all owned by one company, ClearChannel the selection is limited to approximately four groups: Classic Rock, Rock - which is really just Pop, Country - which is a bastardization of Rock, and Rap. Flame on if you want, but make sure you've been listening to music for >30 years first.
Now for every station that is in one of these catagories, there are a list of songs (heard of Top 40?) that are played on a regular basis. This frequency is such that by the time I get home on Tuesday I know the lyrics of all the songs that came out on Monday.
Kind of limited on my selections of music that are available through public means of acquisitiion. Meaning, in order to seek music legally, I am limited to very narrow vectors of music.
So, I go to the music stores to seek my wide range of music. Guess what I find there? The same shit that I heard on the way over and now it's running better than $20 a pop. I actually tried to just buy a CD based on a precious small sample I heard once. It lasted about 3 hours before I threw it out. CD music is too expensive to purchase on the basis of, "Maybe this will be good to listen to". Unfortunately there doesn't seem to be a better way of doing it.
So, where does that leave us?
Conclusion: If you want to explore the world of music, publicly available radio stations and music stores will not provide you with anything better than cattle food. If you want to find more variety, the only place you might find it is in P2P music community. To date, there is no better medium through which to experience a variety of music and find what you really like.
For my tastes, P2P is a great place to borrow music to learn what I like. Then I can make a more targeted attempt to get the music via the internet rather than getting it through the likes of Best Buy (which won't ever happen because they have no selection).
Unfortunately, all this RIAA activity is simply causing me to try new things like:
Aren't these the same guys that were so successful in Waco, TX; Ruby Ridge, and don't forget their best success in history -- prohibition!!!
So, when are we actually going to get around to boycotting all radio and music sales in America?
There is no way in hell any of this will ever change until there is a concerted effort to make a point to them. Not buying music will not work.
Sure the music industry took a dump almost to the day they shut down napster. But they blamed it on illegal music sharing, not a fact of the music buyers just lost their single best means of identifying what they want to buy. Why? Because no body told them in clear terms.
If you want to get through to RIAA/MPAA then it's going to be a matter of boycott, boycott, boycott. Make it political, make it public, make it noticable, make it known.
Personally, I do not intend on purchasing a HDTV simply because that media will no longer allow me to record television shows.
I have been so overwhelmed with commercials that it's easier for me to learn how to not watch TV and not listen to the Radio than to put up with the constant babble.
I suggest we all give it a try, but do it all at once under a concerted boycotting effort.
"can be billed per election transferred"
:)
I'm sure you meant electron, but the typo's funnier anyway.
Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean there isn't an invisible demon about to eat your face
I think rather more the problem is this.
Normally, markets in a capitalism are producer-led or consumer-led. Producer-led markets appear when a product is popular, and tend to lead to high prices. These are good: there must be some reason why the product is popular, and the producer gets rewarded for producing it. Consumer-led markets appear when a product isn't so popular so producers want to get it out the door, and tend to lead to low prices. These are good too: the consumers can buy their stuff for a lower price.
But IP at the moment is neither of these. IP is an example of a horrible situation: the distribution-led market. The distribution-led market is actually a violation of capitalism; capitalism is based on a free market, but when distribution leading occurs, the market ceases to be free.
In a distribution-led market, producers are forced to accept bad deals from the distributors because they have no other way to get stuff marketed; and consumers are forced to pay high prices (which aren't passed back to the producers) because the distributors, having got their deals from the producers, don't really care that much if the stuff doesn't sell. Everybody loses.
At the moment, copyright - together with other market forces - is acting to maintain that distribution-led situation. And a great point of indignancy is that copyright law was quickly updated to allow for "internet realities", but was never updated to allow for the realities of a distribution-led market. (By means such as barring the transfer of copyright, thus making it impossible for distributors to force artists to give away their entire IP rights.)
Personally, I think the best way would be for the government to simply state: "We're giving you six months. If the market is still distribution-led after that time, copyright law will be abolished. Sort it out amongst yourselves or we'll pull out the rug." (That tactic could have been applied in other cases too. Like "Make it so that key workers can afford houses in all areas. If you haven't done so after six months, mortgage interest will be raised to 500%, thus razing your market to the ground.")
True, the people are not forced to steal, but the theft is comming from inflated prices for what people are unwilling to pay for. And the opportunity cost of stealing a Lexus is higher, than the opportunity cost of stealing music. The likely hood of being arrested and spending 3-5 in prision over music is so much smaller (but the penatilies for stealing on piece of music now outwiegh the penalties of stealing a car, so people, take that as a lesson. If your going to steal music and get caught, steal a car instead) Society has dictated that stealing music is not nessasarily a social crime, but stealing a car is a huge crime. Additionally, when you buy a Lexus there is a value, and most people that want a Lexus would probably agree that a Lexus is worth the value. But few would agree that Britney Spears song carries any value. The difference between a Lexus and music is that the market has generally agreed that a Lexus should sell for the $35,000, and that music is not really worth the money RIAA is charging. The argument that I was trying to make is that RIAA is encouraging theft of music by refusing to allow the market to reach equilibrium with the supply of the music and the demand. In other words, Pink's new CD should cell for more than Britney Spear's new CD, and both should sell more than Matchbox 20's CD that came out three years ago -- the price for CD's seems to be so static that whether you want the latest and greatest, you pay the same for the old and lame. RIAA could reduce the amount of piracy by having a vairable market price, which is determined by what people are willing to pay - for example, with Pink's latest, maybe people are willing to pay $12, but not $23, and then when her next CD comes out price it at the same range. How this will prevent piracy is that more people will be willing to pay the money and own the CD instead of downloading. And downloading does have an opportunity cost -- the amount of time and effort that it takes to get a quality song. If the value of the CD to person is higher than the effort to download 15 songs and try to get them in a reasonable time, then they may be willing to buy it. I had a room mate spend a week on broadband try to get a complete album, and if the CD was cheaper than $20, he would have bought them.
Another interesting aspect to look at is what you get for your $20. You get music, and that is it. But for the same $20, you can go to the movies and get popcorn and a soda, or you could buy a movie. Maybe you wanted a book, which for $20 you could buy. The problem is that the value of what you are getting for $20 is so much lower -- you get an audio experience, but with video you get more, and even with a book. With a Lexus you get more value, and you can enjoy it for years to come. With music you may listen to the song occasionally, and then never listen to it again. RIAA is trying to place the value of music on the same level as a movie, or a book. At least for $20 with a movie you get two hours of entertainment. So that is the real issue -- the value is so much lower and people would rather spend there money elsewhere. I know that I have not bought a CD in four years (and I don't download music, I prefer RADIO because it is free, except for commericals) because the value is so low and the price so high. Additionaly, music, except for concerts, is a secondary experience, where movies and books are a primary experience. You listen to music while driving, and you listen to music while studying. You don't watch a movie while driving, or drive your car while listening to music. Generally, something that aguments the primary experience is not worth as much as the primary experience.
So while I agree that you can't be forced to steal, I am arguing that RIAA encourages the theft by placing something that people want, but is generally beyond their reach because of prices. And I also agree that theft of music is morally wrong. (Although stealing music does not carry the same weight as stealing a Lexus).
The views expressed are mine own and do not express the views of my employer.
This is the basis of your argument; just like a philosopher starts with "I think, therefore I am". The whole point of my post was to question the validity of that assumption in the first place. You still don't understand what I'm trying to say.
Undoubtedly, the next response in this thread will start with "How can you question my axiom? I worked on it! I should control it!"
No, but it means that rational people will yawn and say "So what?" when you argue that because X is currently illegal, you shouldn't do X. Law has long lost any moral authority as a guide to what one should or should not do; it's just a guide as to what to not get caught doing.
When a law is both unenforceable and widely broken, an intelligent society will change it. Failure to do so only breeds contempt for the law, and erosion of justice as more extreme attempts at enforcement are brought into play. (Like the "War on (some) Drugs"? Look for the "War on Copying", coming soon. Former ATF stormtroopers coming to the RIAA could be just the first step.)
In the case of copyright, the whole idea of "pay-per-copy" is dying if not dead. It's long past time to start developing alternative ways for authors and musicians to get paid.
Copying a CD is now about as easy as learning to sing a song. I suggest putting copying music under the same sort of structure as performance royalties - copy all you want, but if you sell or otherwise profit from copies (including profiting from downloads), you owe a royalty. Eliminate copyright, create a royaltyright.
As an semi-professional musician (I've actually gotten paid a few times, so I guess I've lost my amateur status) I want people to share my music. I don't have moral or legal authority to demand a nickel if someone hums a song I wrote, and the same should apply if someone makes a copy to give away. (Hell, I should pay them a nickel.) But if anyone's making a buck off it, I think I deserve a cut.
Tom Swiss | the infamous tms | my blog
You cannot wash away blood with blood
> If you don't pay him for the right to use it but use it anyway, you are taking money from him
AAAARGH, this is a fucking stupid argument. If you don't pay him for the right to use it, you are taking JACK SHIT. You MAY be preventing the compensation from one sale, but the creator has not lost a damn thing.
Take this further: Say I am a painter. I sell my paintings for not a penny under $40,000. Joe Schtick thinks it's cool, but only works minimum wage. He takes a picture of it (which he could blow up to actual size, although it would be slightly lower quality, a la CD -> MP3). He may well be breaking the law, technically, but I have not lost anything just because he made a copy of my work. I wasn't going to get the money anyway, so I HAVE LOST NOTHING, nothing was taken from me.
If you are free to steal peoples work, for the most part, they won't make the work to begin with.
You made the mistake of using "steal" instead of "copy". Let me correct it so I can properly reply:
If you are free to copy peoples work, for the most part, they won't make the work to begin with.
True.
You still have absolutely no inherent right to prevent someone from repeating (copying) an idea you have spoken to them. Or to prevent them from themselves drawing (copying) an image that they have seen, or themselves writing (copying) a text they have seen.
If I may take a US-centric view a moment, the constitution says that congress has the power: "To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries".
Copyright law is not based on any sort of personal right. If you look at that constitutional wording it actually says that authors and inventors do not already possess any such right. Congress MAY secure such rights for them IF THEY CHOOSE TO, and they may only do so for a specific purpose - the purpose of benefiting the public. Any profit and benefit to the creator is irrelevant side effect. It is only relevant as a means to an end.
Copyright law is a matter of public policy. It is good public policy to give people an incentive to create. Copyright protection and profit for creators can be an excellent means to an end. They can be a very good thing, but it is important to remember that it only exists for the benefit of the public and to ultimately get more creations into the public domain. The natural state of information-creations is in the public domain, copyright law exists for the purpose of maximizing the growth of the public domain. It does this by temporarily pulling it out of the public domain.
Copyright infringement is no more "theft" or "stealing" than slander is "theft" or "stealing". That is not mean infringment is a good thing any more than it means slander is a good thing.
The big problem is that out congress has lost sight of the constitutional purpose of copyright law. Congress has been passing bad law - bad public policy. Given the way things are going - perpetual duration and constantly expanding restrictions and extermination of fair use and the absurd DMCA and the Trusted Computing inititave - given a chice between that and no copyright at all, I'd go with no copyright at all.
Of course the BEST way to procede would be to return to the original constitutional purpose of copyright giving an incentive by securing the profits generated from a work for its creator. Unfortunately the Copyright Lobby has absolutely no interest in good and proper copyright law is - they are busy waging a war against the public interest.
-
- - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.